Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides Wisconsin deer hunting case

Deer hunting is serious business in
the state of Wisconsin. Although the hunters and the state
game wardens may coexist peacefully most of the time, in
this case they did not. A dispute erupted between Mitch
Rooni, a hunter, and Bradley Biser, a warden employed by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and
it has now wended its way into federal court. According to Rooni, on November 19, 2005, Biser arrested him without
probable cause and used excessive force against him both
before and after the arrest. Asserting that his civil rights had
been violated by these actions, Rooni brought suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Biser; Biser responded with a motion
for summary judgment in his favor on all counts. The district
court granted the motion with one exception, for the charge
that Rooni used excessive force before the arrest. The parties
then jointly filed a motion to dismiss the pre‐arrest excessive‐
force claim with prejudice. The district court agreed to
do so and entered a final judgment in Biser’s favor.

Rooni contends on appeal that the district court erred by
granting summary judgment on the unlawful‐arrest claim
and the claim of excessive force after the arrest in connection
with his handcuffing. He also argues that the court was
mistaken to conclude that Biser was entitled in any event to
qualified immunity. We conclude that the district court
correctly granted summary judgment in Biser’s favor on the
handcuffing claim; at a minimum, Biser is entitled to
qualified immunity on this part of the case. Rooni’s arrest
claim, however, is another matter. Taking his reasonable
allegations as true, as we must, we conclude that neither
probable cause nor “arguable” probable cause supported
Rooni’s arrest. This means that a trier of fact could conclude
(if it accepted Rooni’s evidence) that Biser violated Rooni’s
clearly established constitutional rights in so arresting him.
We thus affirm in part and remand in part to the district
court for further proceedings on the wrongful‐arrest claim. * * *

In closing, we cannot resist commenting that it strikes us
as unfortunate that the kind of dust‐up that gave rise to this
case can wind up in federal court. Nevertheless, as the Supreme
Court reminds us, we have an “unflagging duty” to
hear cases that fall within our jurisdiction, and the broad
principles that underlie the right of citizens to be free from
unlawful arrests and the use of excessive force by public officers
are far from trivial. We thus AFFIRM the judgment of
the district court on the handcuffing and REVERSE and
REMAND the unlawful‐arrest decision for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.